United States v. Griffith

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-10327 SEPT 28, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cr-00096-WKW-CSC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES HAROLD GRIFFITH,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(September 28, 2010)
Before CARNES, HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James Harold Griffith appeals his convictions for manufacturing and
possessing methamphetamine and maintaining a place for the purpose of
manufacturing, distributing, or using methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 844(a), and 856(a)(1), and for possessing a firearm in furtherance of
a drug trafficking crime and as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 924(c)(1) and 922(g)(1). On appeal, Griffith argues that the district court
clearly erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. After review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
A federal grand jury, in a superseding indictment, charged Griffith with (1)
manufacturing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, (2) possessing firearms in
furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, (3) two counts of possessing firearms as
a convicted felon, (4) maintaining a place for the purpose of manufacturing,
distributing, and using methamphetamine, and (5) possessing methamphetamine.
Before trial, Griffith moved to suppress evidence seized during a search of
his home, alleging his consent to search was coerced. The magistrate judge held a
hearing.
The government called Josh McAlister, a narcotics investigator for the
Tallapoosa County Sheriff’s Office, who testified that his office received
information that Defendant Griffith was manufacturing methamphetamine and that
Griffith had an outstanding arrest warrant for failure to appear concerning child
support. Investigator McAlister and two other investigators, Fred White and Cliff
2
Scott, went to Griffith’s home and knocked on the door. Griffith came outside the
house through a different door when the investigators knocked, and McAlister told
Griffith he was under arrest. McAlister searched Griffith’s person, finding a vial
that contained methamphetamine.
Investigator McAlister told Griffith that the investigators had received
complaints about Griffith cooking methamphetamine and asked if they could go
inside. Griffith then “started explaining that he had items that he had cooked with,
but not presently.” Griffith “said there were items here and I will show them to
you or whatever. I knew this was coming. I’m glad this is over with, those types
of things.” McAlister testified Griffith “seemed relieved,” was “not defensive at
all,” and told McAlister “that he would be glad to show me whatever.”
Investigator McAlister and Investigator White went inside the house with
Griffith. McAlister wanted to go inside to talk to Griffith and also because the
investigators had seen another man, Lewis Flowers, at the home when they arrived
and had information that Flowers had a gun. Once inside, Griffith pointed out the
room Flowers was in and called for Flowers to come out. Investigator White also
yelled for Flowers to come out. Flowers came out with his hands raised, and the
investigators handcuffed Flowers and took Griffith and Flowers outside.
3
Investigator White read Griffith and Flowers their Miranda1 rights and both men
said they understood them.
Investigator McAlister went back into the house with Griffith. McAlister
testified they went back inside because Griffith had consented and said he would
show McAlister where the methamphetamine paraphernalia was. Griffith “was
being very cooperative” and told McAlister “it had been stressing him because he
didn’t want to be manufacturing dope anymore.” Griffith led McAlister to the
back bathroom and a camper behind the house where methamphetamine and items
used in its manufacture were located and “told [the investigators] everything [they]
wanted to know about the manufacturing.”
Investigator McAlister testified he asked Griffith for permission to search
his property when they were inside the house. McAlister told Griffith that there
was an arrest warrant for him and that he would be arrested for the
methamphetamine, but the investigators did not have a search warrant and that was
why they were talking to him about consent. McAlister did not threaten or coerce
Griffith and made him no promises. When asked for consent to search, Griffith
said, “[y]es, he would take me to show me whatever.” Griffith placed no
1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966).
4
limitations on the search. Griffith appeared to understand the investigators’
questions.
The government’s next witness, Investigator White, gave similar testimony.
White testified he went into the house with Investigator McAlister and Griffith
and Griffith volunteered to call out to Flowers to come out of his room. When
Flowers came out of his room, all four men left the house and White read Griffith
and Flowers their Miranda rights. White did not threaten or coerce Griffith, and
Griffith seemed to understand his rights. Griffith waived his rights and said
something to the effect of “I just want to get this over with, man. I’m ready for
this to be over with.” White testified the investigators took Griffith and Flowers
outside for safety reasons, because they did not know where Flowers’s gun was
and they wanted to get him out of the house.
After he waived his Miranda rights, Griffith took McAlister and White to
different places inside the house and to a camper behind the house and showed the
investigators drug paraphernalia and items used in the manufacture of
methamphetamine.
Investigator White did not hear McAlister make any promises or threats to
Griffith or coerce Griffith in any way. White testified that when McAlister
searched Griffith and found the vial of methamphetamine, McAlister asked if
5
Griffith had anything in relation to the methamphetamine in his pocket, and
Griffith said, “I got some old stuff. Come on, I want to show you.” McAlister
told Griffith the investigators did not have a search warrant, though they could
apply for one. Griffith was “very cooperative” and “very respectful” toward the
investigators, and they were respectful toward Griffith as well.
The defense called Griffith, who testified that when the police arrived at his
house, he and Flowers had just finished smoking some methamphetamine.
Griffith went outside and asked McAlister what was going on. McAlister told him
he had a warrant for Griffith’s arrest for a child support violation. McAlister
handcuffed him.
Griffith testified that McAlister did not ask to search the house and Griffith
did not give consent to search. McAlister asked Griffith who was in the house,
and Griffith told him Flowers was there. At that point the two investigators other
than McAlister went up to Griffith’s front porch, one of them opened the door, and
all four men went inside. The investigators asked Griffith to call Flowers out, and
he did so. McAlister then patted Griffith down inside the house and pulled out a
vial. McAlister looked at it and asked Griffith what he had in the bathroom.
Griffith said “whatever you find, take it all because I’m tired of this. Because I
was fed up with it, I mean the aggravation.”
6
One of the investigators took Flowers outside and the others, without asking
for Griffith’s consent, took Griffith back to the bathroom and started asking him
what everything was. Griffith explained what everything was. Griffith led the
investigators to the camper after McAlister asked about it, and Griffith unlocked it
for them. McAlister told Griffith he knew where everything was because Griffith’s
ex-girlfriend had already told the investigators. Griffith was “already inside” and
“already caught, so [he] wasn’t going to fight [the investigators],” but he never
gave them permission.
Griffith testified the reason he went outside to meet the investigators was to
keep them out of the house because he knew what was in the house and that it was
illegal. However, the investigators “went ahead and pushed me inside anyway.”
When the investigators took Griffith inside the house, he did not believe he had a
choice in the matter. No one discussed consent to search the house. No one read
Griffith his Miranda rights until he got to the jail. Investigator White never spoke
to Griffith at the house.
On cross-examination, Griffith testified that on the day after his arrest,
Griffith made a statement that McAlister typed up and Griffith signed. Griffith
acknowledged his statement said that he wanted the investigators to take
everything from the house so he could quit using methamphetamine.
7
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (the “report”)
recommending that Griffith’s motion to suppress be denied. In the report, the
magistrate judge stated that because the testimony of Griffith and McAlister
conflicted on whether Griffith gave the investigators consent to search, the court
had to determine the witnesses’ credibility. The magistrate judge found Griffith’s
testimony was not credible and Griffith consented to the search:
The court recognizes that it is improper to determine credibility based
on the “status” of a witness. United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d
744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002). Thus, McAllister’s [sic] status as a police
officer is not determinative. Rather, the court must weigh the testimony
of these two witnesses in light of all the facts, taking into account their
interests, the consistencies or inconsistencies in their testimony, and
their demeanor on the stand. Gallego v. United States, 174 F.3d 1196,
1198 (11th Cir. 1999). When weighing the testimony of Griffith with
the testimony of other witnesses, the court finds that Griffith’s testimony
is not credible. As the defendant in this matter, his interest in the
outcome of this case militates against his veracity in this regard.
Moreover, Griffith testified that immediately before the officers arrived
at the residence, he and Flowers were smoking methamphetamine which
does not give the court any confidence in his recollection of the events.
The court concludes that Griffith was not credible and, therefore,
McAllister [sic] asked for and received consent from Griffith to search.
The magistrate judge also found that Griffith’s consent was voluntary. The
magistrate judge reasoned that Griffith’s presence in his own living room militated
against coercion, that his being arrested and handcuffed on the child support
8
warrant was only one factor for the court’s consideration, and that there was no
evidence that the investigators used coercive or threatening tactics.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
denied the motion to suppress. Griffith objected to the recommendation, arguing
the magistrate judge made an improper adverse inference based on his status as a
defendant, but the district court determined that the magistrate judge had merely
taken into account Griffith’s interest in assessing the credibility of his testimony.
At trial, Griffith was convicted on all six counts of the superseding
indictment. Griffith was sentenced to 248 months’ imprisonment.2
II. DISCUSSION
Griffith argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress
because the district court’s denial of the motion was based on the magistrate
judge’s clearly erroneous determination that Griffith’s testimony was not credible.3
2
Griffith had a criminal history category of III and a total offense level of 34 for all counts
except Count 2 (firearm possession in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense), yielding an
advisory guidelines range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. Griffith was subject to a
mandatory 5-year consecutive sentence on Count 2 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Griffith does
not appeal his sentence.
3
“A district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and
fact.” United States v. Garcia-Bercovich, 582 F.3d 1234, 1238 (11th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130
S. Ct. 1562 (2010). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its
application of law to the facts de novo. Id.9
“Credibility determinations are typically the province of the fact finder
because the fact finder personally observes the testimony and is thus in a better
position than a reviewing court to assess the credibility of witnesses.” United
States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002). Therefore, “we
should defer to the magistrate judge’s determinations unless his understanding of
the facts appears to be ‘unbelievable.’” Id. “In other words, we must accept the
evidence unless it is contrary to the laws of nature, or is so inconsistent or
improbable on its face that no reasonable factfinder could accept it.” Id. (brackets
omitted).
The magistrate judge’s determination that Investigators McAlister and
White’s version of events was more credible than Griffith’s is not clearly
erroneous. The investigators’ testimony was plausible, and it was reasonable for
the magistrate judge to conclude that the investigators’ testimony that they asked
for and obtained Griffith’s voluntary consent to enter and search his house was
true.
Griffith contends that the magistrate judge improperly based his credibility
finding on Griffith’s status as a defendant. We disagree. The magistrate judge
expressly noted that status-based credibility determinations are improper, and
merely took into account Griffith’s interest as one factor in determining his
10
credibility. The magistrate judge’s report, as a whole, does not support Griffith’s
claim that the district court decided credibility merely because Griffith was the
defendant and McAlister and White were law enforcement officers.
AFFIRMED.
11